Members EricaKane70 Posted March 14, 2008 Members Share Posted March 14, 2008 Yes, thats what I mean't they are deciding right now, but leaning towards a no on the revote. An about the whole race issue with Ferraro, I think obama better just let this go before this race is overshadowed by race and thats something that could hurt his campaign. I was astonished reading the comments on CNN on how alot of people were agreeing with Ferraro, not that I think they are right but makes you wonder how many americans feel that way really. Ferraro is gone from clintons campaign, clinton apologized, and clinton does not agree with this woman so I think he should just drop it.imo OMG, I don't know who is worse Ferraro or Obama mentor pastor Wright. Its really sad that both hillary and obama have become the targets and they didn't even say anything. Why obama needs to let it go Here I was worried about sharpton and jackson injecting race into this campaign, didn't realize obama's own mentor would do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted March 14, 2008 Members Share Posted March 14, 2008 Wow that guy is nuts...I think he and Ferraro should get married I thought the current Pope was a hateful moron but this guy tops him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted March 14, 2008 Members Share Posted March 14, 2008 How convenient for someone to dig up rhetoric spewed by Obama's pastor 5 years ago. Nothing he said was a denigration of race, sex or any other attribute no one has control over. If anything, the guy pointed out the obvious connection between America's foreign policies and 9/11. The terrorists can never be validated, but we can't turn a blind eye to our own culpability. No, this country does NOT always function in a way we can be proud of, and he nor Mrs. Obama should be called out for saying it. Meanwhile John McCain proudly supports an anti-Catholic and the media is apathetic because he's got the GOP nomination locked up already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted March 15, 2008 Members Share Posted March 15, 2008 Hey EK70...do you suppose, if Hillary wins the nomination, she will pick Samuel Woods as her running mate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricaKane70 Posted March 15, 2008 Members Share Posted March 15, 2008 For whom it may concern, the footage of pastor wright was all over the news and all over youtube, dig up I think not. I don't care if this footage is 5 years old why is obama listening to this racist fool and his hate rhetoric? Obama has been going to his church for 20 years, he's his mentor, and looks for him for guidance. I'm sorry but if hillary has to be accountable for the company she keeps so should obama. But I'm glad obama denounced what he was saying and ditched him from his campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted March 15, 2008 Members Share Posted March 15, 2008 Well look at it this way, EK70. Nobody wants to know what I would dig up on anyone *evil laugh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted March 15, 2008 Members Share Posted March 15, 2008 Of course Obama went straight to the cable news outlets to atone for his scary, militant black minister. Anyone of the civil rights generation is considered to be an old fool in the habit of race baiting, obviously popular rhetoric that works now despite Charmayne Brown getting her ass kicked. In a delusional country that would have us believe we're in a "post-racial" climate now, the most important virtue is total silence about society's inequities. Some wise ass on MSNBC said reverend Wright was "hysterical" last night. Now every impassioned minister using their voice forcefully will be under surveillance. When Ferraro said race put Obama in an enviable position, she was a liar because that should have been true for Sharpton and Alan Keyes as well. If there's proof that Wright used his pulpit to preach hatred I'll change my mind, but for now I know that he's only guilty of committing America's 2 cardinal sins - being truthful about race relations and the government policies that contributed to 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members David_Vickers Posted March 15, 2008 Members Share Posted March 15, 2008 I'm glad Barack Obama has spoke out against this/his minister. Hopefully he'll also leave that church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members David_Vickers Posted March 15, 2008 Members Share Posted March 15, 2008 EXACTLY! WTF?!?!? Hillary's is definitely NO REPUBLICAN. I think Hillary will win MI too. MI is more likely to have a revote then FL, but I believe both will do so. Exactly. Great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted March 15, 2008 Members Share Posted March 15, 2008 One more Time....To me, Hillary IS a Republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 Well Roman for what it is worth....she was a Republican during the Goldwater days but switched to the Democrat party since they seemed to lose touch with their voters. So I guess, from her early days, that is how she has some conservative elements to her Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaytimeFan Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 If there's one thing people should realize about Hillary Clinton it's this: Hillary is tough, she's a fighter and she is not going down without fighting like hell. She wants this presidency more than anyone else, she seems hungry for it. It ain't over till it's over. So many pundits have counted her out and yet here she is, still soldiering on. I think Michigan and Florida, revote or not, are favorable to Hillary. They're big states with large populations and big money. Obama has more states, but in the grand scheme of things Hillary has the states that matter. That's what the superdelegates are obviously mindful of: who can actually get the numbers necessary to oust the Republican Party candidate. Neither Clinton nor Obama is a slam dunk candidate...but then neither is McCain. That being said, when it comes to the research, every poll I've seen has made it clear that it it were an Obama v McCain race, Obama would lose. The inverse is true of a Clinton v McCain match up. In my opinion Clinton is more electable and that's what the Democratic party should be looking at, who can beat McCain. The answer, in my view, is Clinton. Believe you me, the world is watching this election, it matters more than any other election in a good long while. Although I think Obama holds promise I am simply not convinced that in this political climate he is the answer...I feel I 'get' Hillary Clinton better than I do Obama, likely a result of the last Clinton administration. I think Hillary's health care plan is superior to anyone else's, I appreciate her stances on social issues and I feel I know what I'm getting with Hillary Clinton, I know what to expect. I can't say the same for Obama. In these turbulent times I want a candidate who can steer the USA back on course, not change the course into something unrecognizable. I am nostalgic for the 1990s when everything seemed to 'work', when the world didn't hate the USA with the vitriol it does now. Simply put, I want Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 Well, DaytimeFan, I can tell you that, when Bill Clinton was president, I got to travel to London and Paris without worrying over if the airplane would be hijacked by trigger happy terrorists. Nowadays, I still feel very fearful to fly quite so far with the increase in terrorism since Iraq and 9/11. We had some great days while he was in The White House (heck, I even toured The White House when he was president). We also went to France at a time when we were allied with them...funny thing is, when we were in London, we told the British that we would be going to Paris in a couple days. They about had heart failure ....British and French just will never get along Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JackPeyton Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 Question: Why is the pres not elected off who gets the most votes? Why do we use the numbers by state? I do not understand that. If someone gets the most votes they should be pres, IMHO. i just dont understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 Jack, we insist on using the electoral college because it's easier for politicians to work with. All they have to do is target districts and states with the most representation and assume that big wins in those places equal victory. That's why Clinton's campaign thinks that her success in states with a bigger delegate count gives her an easy ride. If not for this outdated, ass-backwards system, Al Gore would have been the president elect in 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.